tv [untitled] May 27, 2014 1:30pm-2:01pm PDT
is closed. commissioner antonini >> i have a question i'm supportive but i have a questdet doesn't specify whatever liquor licenses a 37 or 42 lastly it's in accumulation with the bona fide eating places. >> yes. >> i'll move to recommend with staff conditions. >> second. >> could i please talk through a little bit more what other entertainment my entail whether or not increase unat the end consequences. >> of entertainment use to include the recreation uses like
bowling alleys and maybe skating rink we're specific xooutd the live dancing and poetry reading one has to get a entertainment permit. >> so the code specifics specific used uses within other entertainment. >> that's right. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner moore. >> mr. sanchez please verify that is only for indoor uses explain that to me it would be interesting to hear that as an expansion of an indoor use correct. >> yes. however, certainly commercial entities that could be open air. >> would they come to us
separately because we know of instances where large gathering in outdoor spaces have ramifications i have you could explain that and the current use for the minnesota it is your use is indoor use only put forth in our amendment. i understand your concerns if it expands to outdoor uses the community wouldn't appreciate the expansion with the bona fide entertainment with the outdoor use we've kept it narrow in our contraction vs. as changing the code >> thank you. if i may through the chair they
require a radish or someplace like if that it must have a outdoor permit >> thank you. >> commissioners there's is moved and seconded. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner borden commissioner hillis. commissioner moore commissioner sugaya. commissioner fong commissioner president wu. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places you on item 12 a and braxton building inspection commission on bush street a request for kufks and we're consider requires for variances. >> good afternoon commissioner president wu and members of the board. i'm with the staff.
the project is located at 1430 bush street and a conditional use authorization to construct a hundred and 15 at all mixed use construction and with the rent a car at the current location. you may recall it was heard by planning commission on september 9th of 2013 and just to bring to our memory the project that was shown at that time, in september. one hundred and 15 foot tall building with 32 unit facing a alley and at that time, there was a few members of public that spoke in opposition and if the commission continued to further work on the design. and there were concerns about a
central courtyard in which the unit that faced the courtyard and at that time that was 33 to 38 feet between the units that was a closeness between the units. since that time the current design the courtyard convict 40 and 40 feet wide the two upper floors have been shaved back the thought of signification is exterior materials and windows. just to briefly show some of the italy rationed after that after the 2013 hearing create notches on the side in terms of balconies and trying to reduce
the overall masking of the building. another iteration is the wedding cake type approach to try to reduce the masking. in terms of the neighborhood outreach they were trying to do additional outreach to the neighbors as well as other polk street residents and in communication with staff the current proposal at the surrounding buildings within the polk street neighborhood and the venice corridor and in looking at those buildings the taller and larger buildings there's an overall architecture tip metrological were there an architect where there's a strong top to the building the main
body of the building and a stronger base that includes the simplification of the masking materials there's the 40 foot wide courtyard just to point out to the commission at the eastern facade is where the height limit drops to 55 feet so that portion of the building remains exposed a couple of last minute changes in continuing their community outreach efforts they've heard that from the community they'd want the affordability opponent to be proposed on site and their current proposal is to have the roofing they've wanted the affordable housing unit on site
that will produce affordable units based on the 32 detrimentally unit two, two bedroom is affordable and one one bedroom. the bicycle legislation only required 16 bicycle locations and they'll provide the co- compliant amount for one class 2 bike spaces if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> thank you. >> thank you project sponsor. >> thank you for having us back here today for paul and joe we're brothers and we run city rent a car and purchased the building back in 1999, so
basically, we want to try and bring our rental car back to the same location. but we want to live upstairs so that's our plan we think this is a good time to do that. and we last time we came in here we didn't know weaponry doing so we went through the outreach and went above that and compassed the entire neighborhood and received 40 support letters on our block and on polk street and everyone we went to supported our project. and so and we decided to do the b m r unit so that's to finish off building showing that all
income levels below market rate and people that need help and smaller unit 5 hundred and thirty square feet and one thousand square feet 6 of them and 14 hundred penalty houses on top. it's the whole income level from bottom to top so we think that's a fair thing and it's necessary for the neighborhood to have this affordable and units for fortunate people. it's a good project for the neighborhood and necessary if any questions we'll hand it over on the architect thanks >> good afternoon commissioner
president wu and commissioners. i'm sure you remember this project from last september. some concerns were raised and some social concerns we listened and went back to the drawing board and basically with the exception of the core design the entire building was redesigned we relocated a quarter of the building we had to redesign the entire units and also the dressing the concerns about the privacy. the gloen mission has been increased to 40 by 40 feet and the mount on the top two floors have been reduced by 3 feet and the template and the setback.
we worked hard to resolve all the main design and social concerns raised last hearing and because of a new trend we lost 3 thousand square feet of residential spaces but we believe we have a good product and a better design if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them thank you >> thank you. okay any public comment on that item on this project? >> jonas can he make. >> council my name is don i'm. >> i'm sorry, go ahead, sir. >> all right. i just wanted to say a few things in regards to the project we try to work extensive with
the planning department and i think we complied to as many requests in regards to this and he hope it meets with our satisfaction we open up the courtyard and we moved things around to the different requests and we tried to appease all of the needs of the city with this project. i think it will be a good project because like stated before we're offering medium cost housing for the city and low cost housing by electing to go into the building type of housing instead of of the loophole. my nephews have been in the city for 16 years and plan on taking
each one of the condos. thank you very much. thank you >> thank you any public comment on that item? >> good afternoon. i'm kelly own left over consignment furniture i own a home four blocks away i'm a resident as well as a small property owner. i think the project will really be fantastic for the neighborhood and offers the kind of housing that people need as well as keeping the family owned rental car business there i use it quite a bit and so do people friends and family. i know they're a friendly neighbor and keep theory businesses clean and professional and that neighborhood could use a project
like this down there >> thank you is there any additional public comment seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner antonini. >> grateful this is a good project and it's grown a lot and responsive to both design reasons and changes they've made one thing not read but in the report they've changed the 220, two bedrooms and decreased the number one bedrooms we can possibly for another housing to another bedroom so it's well done. knows i would ask maybe the architect requesting about the sighting on that. what is the nature of theeding not the glassed area and the
good composite it's called per diem that's a composite wood environmental from him and resistant to the elements and yeah. judging from the bloke everything is masonry but to the tent you can use the materials as harmonious as possible if this material allows something darker in color as most of the ones on the block and cross hatch that won't be masonry but some kind of marks that would give it the appearance of being sympathetic and my other suggestion wherever possible put
moldings around the windows that's a nice touch that looks sympathetic to the adjacent building i'm supportive of the project just design ideas >> commissioner moore. the project definitely has addressed the important visibility and the larger courtyard he leaves if you few units. the issue that is the conceptual issue is the issue about parking on the second floor particular on bush and the alley that remains an issue within the traders prerogative to grant the variance generally it lies with the planning commission to caution about parking on the
second floor. this is the rule we mostly enforce everywhere and the slightly different organization of the building on the first and second floor would have a different solution that deals with taking access not have bush street but of the alley. the other point i raised and it's not easy within the van ness district we have the ability to enforce a more staggered building configuration when it comes to addressing the alley we want to address the cross sections where people don't walk on the busy thoroughfares but to move in an
east, west direction those reports were not addressed i'm pointing out because in the a challenge we had and the other issue i'd like to ask the zoning administer on the upper floors of penthouse floor the penthouse roof i don't see an elevator it has to come out somewhere the roof itself would have something on top of u take off i top of the elevator and then transfer floor and it doesn't come through the roof escape is disappears so there's information missing and last but not least while i appreciate mr. the gentleman's implication of the facade i think the west facade is a problematic facade. if you would look at drawing pr
5 in front of you we're basically dealing with a facade order that primarily relies on windows on property lines. all of those windows are property line windows relating large surfaces which can have prop line windows till such point but the ball itself requires a more vertical or other types scoring or change in materials i'm not going to get into it but i believe that ball is quite olympic. the second point i'd like to ask the buildings of this size often in most cases have more than one
elevator it is a reasonably large unit to be serviced by one elevator when they access the second floor it's a more public point of access. i leave it with those questions and while i support the project i know it needs nor refinement and i agree with the west facing lawn. i'd like to see a little bit more definition in that wall i think it sunshine could be done with the material your using to make it maybe not articulated but some break up so there is lines in there that is give is more definition perhaps a little bit darker color might help.
and with regards in the parking on the second floor i think we're trying to support on existing business that requires it to be cars and those cars are going to be operated mostly on the main floor and the residential parking on the second; is that correct. so i'm not exactly sure it has to go somewhere it is hidden from view it looks like it's masked by the outside of the building so this is fine with me. and then also i suggest that we try to make the corn in his of the two adjacent building and at the very a top we have before the set back if we can make that as strong as possible it's not
as strong as the corn in his a couple of doors down but something other than the line i'll defer to the other commissions i'm okay with the project otherwise and see what everyone says and commissioner borden >> i appreciate that the project sponsor did more than was provided and worked to remedy the challenges addressed in terms of the parking on the second floor i get it. for the car storage related to the rental car business i get that. it's a different kind of business i don't know. but i'm not sure there's another way to handle it to be honest.
maybe the gentleman could address what other options >> i think staff had the same challenges essentially and part say was take into account keeping the existing building and project site location and another thing that the project sponsor asked for was the parking reduction so they're not providing the one-on-one parking and choosing to excavate down to the parking garage and one of the champs it is within the venice district it's challenging because we have our transit first policy but in the venice automobile uses their encouraged and allowed to exist within the district 80 so staff had similar conversations that are coming about now with the
commissioners. >> i'm fine with that being the case as well as from the facade especially there's a way to make an impact on the street it's not a dead zone. i believe also the west wall issue that was initiative last week on the pine street project the wall maybe treatment there. there's a lot of i recommend we move to approve and ask the staff continue to work with the project sponsor and the other issues including the west wall and i forget there was another concern commissioner moore addressed >> about the shatter. >> i don't know if that - >> second. >> may i answer the question. >> question. >> the new technology they
don't require a up to the present time how did so it shatter stops at the floor 9 there are two-story levels so the people that exit 9 they traffic to floor 10 so there's no exit requirements for 10 and thus that may help to reduce the original tower if you remember from previous projects that was about eight or nine feet we messaged managed to reduce that. >> my question addresses the elevator mains and how to get to the old garage i understand your coming up to 9 and internally walk up to the penthouse but where's the offer riding the
elevator. >> about floor 9. >> but access from the unit. >> no, from the rooftop. >> on the rooftop. >> correct. >> other people i misreading this and based on the plans it appears that wall goes to the top the tenth floor but the floor plans that looks like the tenth floor the area between the two tower elements is the roof that this be clarified in terms of what is at that level exactly. >> it might be a drawing oversight i said it's not readable but it might have an impact on the overall profile. >> the plans on three show that it's rooftop on the bottom of the plans they're probably should be reference to the offer
run of the elevator even if minimal. >> the offer run is happening if any at floor 10 so this comes to the roof of floor 10 but the units are not in the area and the floor below its floor 9 where the elevator exits. >> it still has it to express itself i think that's what the zoning administered it saying but i think you can understand what he's talking about. >> commissioner sugaya. >> well, i have a couple of questions on the staff report it says the go automobile active is bush street address 3 parking spaces for the audible active rental use but on the plans it
says 12 tandem parking can we get clarification. the 12 parking is for the city rent a car use they park in tandem because one or two people move the cars >> i understand that but the staff report says 3. sir >> the draft motion in our packet is from september 19th hearing it if reflect all the technologically technical changes that's been handled at the staff level in the update level those changes will be made into the final motion in the condition is approved. >> the second question the community space room is if we take it for what it is a
community room that will be available to the public? >> primarily that's available to the residents but. >> oh, okay. >> but the cc&r if the public can use it and that's an internal room. >> right. >> you pride the only assess through the residential lobby and i don't think the resident will like the public going through to go to a meeting they might be perfectly fine but it could cause problems. >> i'm supportive of the motion there's been a calory desire for the staff to work with the project design. i'm curious about i don't know if it's forearm by design or size i believe that argument was made to us when the project was on